The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-01-25

| WneLueI On bno contrary LneL 60vern-
melt had not expressly disavoyed
the act and apolog'zsd for il. He
read from the report a note from the
Epgi,h Foreign Off sc to the Canadia ian
Government on the subject.
Sen tor Edmunds suggested that
CAPT Quiglty WAS still in tae Govern.
ment service.
Senator Frye q1otei from a recent
statute parsed by the Dominion Gov.
eminent in still further host lily to
American fishermen, aud eaid that
that legislation hsd bsen approved by
the British Government The hope,
therefore, thai Gteat Bri ain would do
Whist was fair and list was destroyed,
and 1t might have been known that
that would have been the result.
There was not line, be said, in the
history Of great Britain for the last 300
years that gave the slightest reason
to believe that in the pursuit
OF gain, in the pursuit of trade,
she would ever permit the right OF
another to stand in the way OF her
progress. Every one OF the cases he
had referred to was in Yiola ion OF the
spirit, and four out OF five OF them
were in vic alton of the letter OF the
treaty OF 1918. Every one OF them
was in violation Of the ru es Of good
! neighbour cd, to the civil zitlon of
the day, ard OF the understand ng of
all civilized nations as to the rights of
foreign ships in their ports. But the
American people knew that they were
80 0O,000. they knew that they were
,hs richest nation OF the earth; tley
knew their power, and they would not
humiliate themselves and do violence
to their conscious pride by rssortlDg
| 10 Ii tie, miserable tricks and outrages
by way OF retaliation. Whit the
| Committee ON Foreign Relations
sought was that the President Of n,
United States should be mpowered to
close American ports agains. any fish
ermeu, or all fi3hermed, against any
merchant vessel, or all merchant YES.
sails. The Queen OF Great Britain had
today the power to close the ports
against any of the products OF the
whole world II she saw fl. He saw
no objection to entrusting that power
to ths President Hs believed that
the President would ony have to
take advantage of tbs bill and Issue
his proclamation that no fish, fresh or
salt, or canned or smoked, the product
OF Canadian fisheries, shall be landed
In any port Of the United
States, aud not another outrage by this
British colony would be heard of. Blu!
| IL these outTagss were to continue,
and were ID result In a reciprocity
treaty las has been the case before),
that treaty would again be abrogated
and the outrages would again be re-
newed. The bill on the sam9 subject
in the House of Representatives went
further than this bill. 1t gave the
President authority to proclaim abso-
luts non.interc purse. Ee did not be.
lievs that the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs would have reported
that bill without knowing whether or
not the administration was in SYM
patty with 1t. The Senator from
Mary and (Mr. Gormsn) had intro
| duced resolution on the same sub
jet some tins ago, and that Senator
was known to be friend OF
the administration, The Secretary
Of the Treasury Zone of the
tion) had lately sent communication
to the Senate reviewing the conduct of
Canada in this matter and had de.
clared it to bs simply brutal" The
Secretary Of State had used diplomatic
lsngu ,ge on the subject but even he
had said, over aud over again, that
the acts OF the Canadian author ties
we're outrages aud thai the United
States would demand estitution. SEN
ator Gray quoted the Secretary OF
s ate as characterizing lin a note to
Min ster Wes) the t, of the Cana
dian authorities as "lnhospitable and
inhuman." Senator Frye added that
the American Miaister to England,
(Mr Paelps) had mads an unexcep.
tionable clear, a complete, and, to
him, an entirely satisfaction ~ statement
OF the whole case. Tnis law, he said,
had power In it. lie believed that
thu President had at heart the honor
aud dignity sf the great Repu olic over
which no presided. He bslieved that
the Pre- ,ident was in favor of protect
ing the rights of every American citi.
zen. He believed that hs was au hon
est man, and II the law were pas ed
the power which it would put into his
hands W cud be used for the protec.
ton OF American rights.
Senator Ingalls, said thst one o. jsct
which hs had la view had been &C.
complshed. He had d sired to ascsr-
tain, if possible, the purpose aud in
iention Of the COMMITTEES on Foreign
Relations In the proposed Legislation
II = had bsen Ia doubt whether it was
intended TO remit the SUI vet to the
domain OF diplomacy, or whether it
was intended as declaration to
Great Britain that it's course, II per-
sisted in, would result ia war. He
understood from the stttsment of the
Senator from Maine (FIye). speaking
for the oommittee-as he (Ssn Ator In.
gllls) supposed he did-that If this bill
became q law 1t was q declaration
to Great Britain that shs would
continue these practices at her peril;
aud If they were persisted in they
must be enforced by war. The state
ments of facts made by the Senator
from Maine constituted a casus beili
under the law OF nations. The contin-
uance OF amicable intercourse, under
such circumstances, would be impos-
sble. He had therefore desired to
know whether the purpose of the bill
was to invite diplomacy or to an
nounce to Great Britain that such pro-
ceedings had been carried to the ex-
tremity and limit Of peaceaple solution.
The voice was the voice Of Canada,
but the hand was the hand Of Great
Britain.
Senator Edmunds asked Senator Iu-
gals whether he meant to say that
any act which the people oil the United
States might consider violation OF a
treaty was necessarily casus belli.
Senator Ingalls, mean TO cay that
declared and avowed and continued
violation Of treaty obligations or of 10
ternational laws are casus belli.
Senator Edmunds - Il does not
necess arily follow that every breach
OF treaty is TO be followed by war.
Senator Ingalls-How about con.
tinucus, deliberate, willful violation